On Nov. 18, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the prohibition against civil marriages for same-sex couples violates the Massachusetts Constitution. As Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated in her ruling, "The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens." She said the government had failed to identify any reason for denying civil marriage to homosexual couples.
The ruling was yet another milestone for the homosexual cause in the US. In response, however, US President George W. Bush commented during his visit to London that "marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," and he felt that the ruling violated this principle. He vowed to work with the US Congress to "defend the sanctity of marriage."
I believe that Bush's remarks were not only inappropriate but also senseless. As the head of the world's superpower, he should never let his religious beliefs interfere with the judicial system. Besides, what is the definition of "sanctity" anyway? The sanctity of marriage lies in loving and cherishing another human being. It's sacred because of the holiness of love, not a person's gender.
By sacrificing certain people's rights in order to protect his personal beliefs, Bush has brought his country back to a time when black people were enslaved and when women were not allowed to vote. Not to mention that the "sacred institution" between heterosexuals doesn't look so sacred in view of the fact that the US has the highest divorce rate in the world.
As times change, perhaps conservatives should also change their minds to keep up with trends. For example, the Episco-pal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop early this month. This served as a very good start. Unfortunately, church conservatives are warning that the consecration could have destroyed people's faith in the church.
In fact, these people should not worry about a thing if their faith in God is strong enough. They have to realize that people hold different religious, moral and ethical convictions about homosexuality, and that the key to the problem often lies in how they read the Bible, and how they truly understand God's words.
I am particularly impressed by the ruling, which stressed that the purpose of marriage is "the commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children." Conservatives claim that the purpose of getting married is to raise children. If that is the case, should women who do not or cannot give birth be barred from marrying?
As for same-sex couples with children, the ruling will not only protect their rights but also those of their children. As the ruling pointed out, homosexual parents have no access to civil marriage and its protection because they are unable to procure a marriage license.
"It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of state benefits because the state disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation," the ruling said.
Looking back at Taiwan situation, President Chen Shui-bian (
Meanwhile, the opposition camp has also vowed to further protect and promote gay rights in Taiwan. It's certainly hoped that our politicians will not only talk the talk but also walk the walk.
Chang Sheng-en is a lecturer of English at Shih Chien University and National Taipei College of Business.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS